he says: "For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member but many.-Now they are many members, yet but one body-That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another."* It would seem then to be irresistibly evident, that the unity of the church ought to be sacredly preserved by all who love the Lord Jesus; and without stopping, at this stage of our investigation, to ascertain all the precise features of this unity, which will hereafter appear; it is evident that the union inculcated by the apostle, is such, as is inconsistent with the divisions which he reprobates, and such divisions substantially are those of the present day, which are all based on some difference of doctrine, forms of government, or mode of worship among acknowledged Christians.

But the obligation of Christians to preserve the unity of the church, is evident from the example of the apostles, of the apostolic and subsequent age.

It would be superfluous to affirm, that no one of the apostles, or their fellow laborers established any sects in the christian church. The bare supposition of the contrary is absurd and revolting to every mind acquainted with the inspired record. Yet what ample ground was there for such a course, if it had been regarded lawful? There was difference of opinion among the apostles, and difference among the first Christians: but neither was regarded as a cause for schism or division in the church. Paul differed from Peter and disapproved of his conduct so much that (he says) "at Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was to be blamed :"+ yet neither of them dreamed of forming a sect for the defence and propagation of his distinctive views. Paul and Barnabas differed about their arrangements for missionary operations, and when the contention grew sharp, each took as fellow laborers those whom he preferred, and thus prosecuted the work; but it never entered into their minds to form different sects in the church. In the apostolic age there existed differences of opinion and practice between the Jewish and Gentile converts, far greater than those † Gal. 2: 11-14.

See also Eph. 4: 3—6.

which divide some of the religious denominations of our land, (the former enjoining circumcision* and other ceremonial observances); yet they did not divide the church into different sects under the guidance of the apostles. On the contrary the apostle enjoined mutual forbearance. "One man (says Paul) esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it-But why dost thou judge (condemn) thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought (despise) thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. Nor did any schism actually arise from these differences till the apostles had gone to their rest, when in direct opposition to this advice, the Nazaraeans, in the reign of Adrian, separated from the body of Christians, who however strongly disapproved of their conduct. It is certain too that during several hundred years, there continued to be persons in the church, who exhibited a lingering attachment to the Mosaic ceremonial observances, yet they were not excluded nor advised to form themselves into a separate sect. The observance of the Lord's day or christian Sabbath was universal ;§ but some Christians during several cen

*Acts 15: 5.

+ Gal. 4: 10: Ye observe days and months and times and years. I am afraid, etc.

Romans 14: 5-10.

§ On the subject of the primitive sanctification of the first day of the week as the christian Sabbath it may not be uninteresting to adduce the testimony of Justin Martyr, who was born three or four years after the death of the apostle John, in his Apology for the Christians, presented to Antoninus Pius, A. D. 150. He says: "On the day which is called Sunday, all whether dwelling in the towns, or in the villages, hold meetings, and the memoirs (Añoμvnuovɛúμata) of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as much as the time will permit; then the reader closing, the person presiding, in a speech exhorts and excites to an imitation of those excellent examples; then we all rise and pour forth united prayers, and when we close our prayers, as was before said, bread is brought forward, and wine and water; and the presiding officer utters prayers and thanksgivings according to his ability (öon dvráμis àvia) and the people respond by saying Amen. A distribution and participation of the things blessed, takes place to each one present, and to those absent it is sent

turies continued also to observe the Jewish Sabbath as a sacred day. The time for the observance of Easter was another point of difference and even of warm controversy; yet excepting some intolerant individuals neither party seriously thought of dividing the church or disowning their brethren on this ground.* Had these differences existed in our time, who can doubt not only that separate sects would have grown out of them but that their formation would be approved by Christians generally? Nay is not this question decided by facts? Is there not a sect of some extent in our land, the Seventh Day Baptists, who dif

by the deacons. Those who are prosperous and willing, give what they choose, each according to his own pleasure; and what is collected is deposited with the presiding officer, and he carefully relieves the orphans and widows, and those who from sickness or other causes are needy, and also those that are in prison, and the strangers that are residing with us, and in short all that have need of help. We all commonly hold our assemblies on SUNDAY, because it is the first day on which God changed the darkness and matter and framed the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour, on the same day, arose from the dead." Murdock's Mos. I. p. 164—5.

The testimony of Eusebius on this point is very satisfactory. He says (Book V. chap. 23,) "there was a considerable discussion raised about this time in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the festival (of the Saviour's) passover."-After narrating the history of this discussion and the efforts of Victor, bishop of Rome, to break communion with those who differed from him, Eusebius quotes an extract from a letter written by Irenaeus to Victor to persuade him to peace. "And though (says Irenaeus to Victor) they (the earlier bishops) themselves did not keep it, they were not the less at peace with those from churches where it was kept, whenever they came to them. Neither at any time did they cast off any, merely for the sake of form. But those very presbyters before thee, who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of churches who did. And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves, about other matters also, they were immediately reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp not to observe it; because he had always observed it with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated.-Which things being so, they communed together, and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polycarp: they separated from each other in peace, all the church being at peace, both those that observe and those that did not observe, maintaining the peace." Euseb. Book V. chap. 24.

VOL. XI. No. 29.

13

fer from other baptists only in regard to the time of observing the christian Sabbath; they believing that the seventh day continues to be the proper one under the New Testament dispensation, as it was under the Old? But in the apostolic churches it was different. There all who were regarded as Christians and lived in the same place, also belonged to the same church, and worshipped together, agreeing to differ in peace on minor points, and remembering that no Christian has a right to judge, that is to condemn his brother Christian on account of his conscientious difference of opinion. Each one was to be fully persuaded in his own mind, and prepare to stand with his brother before the judgment seat of Christ. Neither was to sit in judgment on the other, Christ was to judge both; and until his final award their differences were to be borne in love.

Let it be borne in mind, then, that in the apostolic age, when the church was governed by inspired servants of God, and for some time after, there was not in the whole christian world any such thing as different sects of acknowledged Christians. All who professed to be Christians, and resided in the same place, belonged to the same church. And if, as was probably the case in large cities, they met at different houses for worship, they nevertheless all regarded each other as members of the same church or congregation; they all frequently communed together, and the reason of different places for meeting, was not diversity of opinions among them, but because private. houses in which they assembled, having had no churches till the third century,* could not contain them all. Heretics there were, who denied some essential doctrines of Christianity. These were excluded from the church in which they had resided, and were then disowned by all other christian church

es.

But different sects of Christians, acknowledging each other as Christians, yet separated on the ground of diversity of opinions, such as the different denominations of Protestants are, had no existence, and were utterly unknown in the apostolic age; nor was the great body of the church ever thus cut up, in her purest day during the earlier centuries. We read of the church at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, the church in Rome, the church in Smyrna, the church in Thyatira, the church in Phil

* The houses for christian worship were erected during the reign of Alexander Severus between A. D. 222-235: yet Vater supposes them to have existed at the close of the 2d century.

adelphia, the church in Jerusalem, the church at Philippi, and in many other places; but never of the Pauline church in Corinth, nor of the church that follows Apollos, nor of the church of Gentile converts, nor of the church of Jewish converts, nor of the church that retains the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, nor of the church that does not. In short Christians in those days were called Christians and nothing but Christians; and one christian church was distinguished from another only by the name of the place in which it was located. This ought certainly to be a solemn fact to those, who have taken it for granted, that sectarian divisions of the church are right, that they were doing God service by their utmost efforts to perpetuate them, by inscribing on the tender and infant mind the lineaments of their denominational peculiarity. One thing does appear undeniable. If the sectarian form of Christianity be its best mode of development, the blessed Saviour himself—with reverence be it spoken!-the Saviour and his apostles failed to give it their injunction; on the contrary, enjoined and practised directly the reverse!! Ine writer does not from these facts infer the obligation of Christians immediately to renounce their present organizations and all merge into one church. Difficulties now exist arising from honest diversity of views on church government, which did not exist in the apostolic age, and which render it impossible for persons thus differing to unite geographically; but the essence of christian union may exist, and ought to be promoted immediately, as will be seen in a subsequent stage of this discussion. As to a union of all the churches of the land in one compact ecclesiastical system of judicature, such a one did not exist in the apostolic age, is undesirable, and dangerous. But the importance of unity in the body of Christ, and the duty of promoting it is further demonstrated by the baneful effects of sectarian divisions.

Sectarian divisions, divisions on the ground of difference, tend to destroy that community of interest, and sympathy of feeling which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently inculcate. How fervently does our blessed Lord supplicate for the unity of all his followers! "Neither pray I for these (the apostles) alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word; that they may all be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee" that there may be among them that unity of counsel,

* John 17: 20, 21.