Parish Papers Part 9

THE CHRISTIAN CONGREGATION.

A Christian congregation professes to be a congregation of Christians, and to represent the same kind of body which, in the apostolic epistles, is termed a "church"--"saints and faithful brethren"-- "faithful in Christ Jesus"--"holy brethren."

It is not, therefore, a number of people meeting only to hear a sermon, or even to unite in public wors.h.i.+p, but without any visible coherence, social life, or united action, but _a body_, an _organised_ whole; the Lord's Supper being the grand symbol of the unity of its members with one another, and with the whole society of the Christian Church on earth and in heaven.[A]

[Footnote A: The social character of the Lord's Supper, and its being a constant witness to the oneness of the whole body of Christ and the _communion_ of saints, has been often so perverted as to have become in the minds of many the grand test and evidence of sectarian division, while "hearing a sermon" is the utmost lat.i.tude which is given to the believer who wishes to testify his love to all who love the Lord Jesus in sincerity. "I would hear him preach, but I would not _join_ with him," _(i.e._, I would not remember Christ with him,) is the strange view of many a professing Christian, in Scotland at least.]

Now, the congregation, as an organised Christian society, has a twofold work to perform. The first is _within_ itself, and includes whatever is done by the members of the congregation for their mutual good; the second is _beyond_ itself, and includes the good done by the whole body to the world "_without_."

It is thus with the living body of the Church as with the dead machinery of a steam-engine, which _first_ feeds itself with coals and water, and _then_ turns the wheels of the whole factory.

The inner and outer work of the congregation as a body may be briefly indicated in a few sentences, though volumes might be profitably filled with its details.

1. The inner work is accomplished within the soul of each member through the preaching and reading of the Word of G.o.d, public prayer, and partaking of the sacrament. By these means chiefly comes that "kingdom of G.o.d which is within us," and is "righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost," Every other work will be done efficiently by the whole body just as this inner work begins and progresses among its individual members. But the fellows.h.i.+p and mutual aid of the members of the Church in "considering one another, and provoking to love and good works," and in contributing their share of G.o.d's gifts and grace bestowed upon themselves for the comfort and edification of their brethren, also belongs to the inner work of the Church. This will express itself and be strengthened by meetings for social prayer and Christian intercourse, and by those works and labours of love for which the congregation itself has the first claim. These labours of love include the religious instruction of its young members the baptized children; the visitation of sick; its support of the poor and dest.i.tute brethren. In these and other forms of well-being and well-doing which will suggest themselves, abundant scope will, in most cases, be afforded for exercising the energies, and calling forth the love of the members of the congregation within the limits of their own society.

2. The work _external_ to itself to be performed by the congregation, as a body, consists generally in its "doing good unto all as G.o.d giveth it an opportunity." The home mission within the district or city in which it is placed will engage its first efforts; and after that, or along with that, the aiding by its contributions and prayers to evangelise the world.

But the point which I would specially insist upon in this paper is, the vast importance of developing, combining, and directing the gifts of _all the members_ of the congregation for accomplis.h.i.+ng both its inner and outer work.

If we read the apostolic epistles, (see I Cor. xii. 14-27,) the impression which, as I have already said, they give us of a Christian congregation is that of a body so organised as that each and every member is made useful to the whole body, and the particular gift which G.o.d bestows upon the weakest and most insignificant (for "_He_ hath set the members in the body as it hath pleased _Him_") is so appreciated and applied, that "the head" or "the eye"--the most intelligent or most discerning--cannot say to that weak member, "I have no need of _thee_".

It may be alleged that the congregations of the primitive Church are not intended to be models in their peculiar organisation for modern times. But is not the primitive Church system of union and mutual co-operation essential to the very idea of a Christian _society_? And what authority is there for its a.s.sembling together to hear sermons, to pray, or to partake of the sacraments, which is not equally binding for its performing of all the other duties and enjoying all the other privileges described by the apostles as pertaining to church-members?

Now, in most cases, everything is left to the minister or his official a.s.sistants. The calculation is never soberly made as to his bodily or mental powers to do all which is expected of him. There is an immense faith in both. It is a.s.sumed that he, and not the congregation, is the body; that he alone, therefore, possesses the eye, the tongue, the ear, and the hand;--and some ministers seem so pleased with their elevated position as to be unwilling that any should share it with them. But when the minister is alive to the responsibility of his position, and when he is so fortunate as to have in his congregation men and women who share his convictions, and are willing to share the labour which these entail, even then there is still the tendency on the part of the great bulk of the members to have their work done by proxy. They have no objection that visiting, teaching, almsgiving, and the like, should be done by "the committee,"--while the committee, perhaps, are inclined, in their turn, to leave it to Mr A., or Miss B., who are active members of it. It is true we must labour, in the meantime, with whatever instrumentality G.o.d furnishes, and make the most of it, but we must not cease to aim at realising the n.o.ble end of making _each_ member, according to his gifts and abilities, manifest the spirit of Him whose saying it was,--"It is more blessed to give than to receive!" No doubt, much wisdom is required upon the part of office-bearers to whom the government of the congregation is intrusted, to discern gifts, and to apply them. But the "one thing"

chiefly needed is "_love in the Spirit!_" It is for this we should chiefly labour; for, let love to Jesus be once kindled by the Spirit of G.o.d through faith in His love to us, and love, which unites us to Him, will unite us to one another.

But admitting all we have said to be true regarding the congregations of the primitive Church, and acknowledging, moreover, that it would be highly desirable could such Christian congregations reappear in our day, it may be reasonably questioned whether this is possible in the present state of society, or whether any attempt to realise it is not a pious imagination, which would lead to extravagances and fanatical disorders such as have often characterised minor sects, who, in seeking to rise up as perfect churches, have sunk down into perfect nuisances? It may be said, "Only look at the elements you have to work upon! Deal with the actual flesh-and-blood men and women who necessarily form the bulk of our congregations, and not with ideal persons. Look at this farmer or shopkeeper--that servant or master; enter the houses of those hearers or paris.h.i.+oners in town or country, from the labourer to the proprietor;--is there the intelligence, the heart, the principle, the common sense--any one element which could unite those members into a body for any high or n.o.ble end? _They_ provoke each other to love and good works, or help to convert the world! Would it were so! but it is _impracticable_."

Such thoughts we have ourselves experienced with feelings of despair.

But there are others that make us hope that Christian congregations throughout our land may yet rise out of their ashes, living bodies imbued with life and love from their living and loving Head.

Are not all the difficulties, for example, connected with the proper organisation of the congregation those only that pertain to the existence of a living Christianity among its members? Given, that church-members individually were what they profess to be--"believers"--"disciples"--"brethren"--would they not, as a necessary result of this character, act collectively, as we suppose a Christian congregation ought to act? And, therefore, when we a.s.sume that it is vain to think of congregations becoming, as a whole, and in spite of many exceptions, living bodies of Christians--men united for mutual good and for the good of the world--do we not thereby a.s.sume that it is vain to expect professing Christians to become "constrained by the love of Christ not to live to themselves, but to Him who died for them and rose again?" Must we confess it to be utterly hopeless to look for such manifestations now of the power of the Spirit as will produce, in our cities and parishes, such congregations, ay, and far better ones, as once existed in Jerusalem, Ephesus, or Philippi?

There is another thought which encourages us, and makes us hope that these same "elements we have to work upon," and which appear to make our congregations incapable of accomplis.h.i.+ng the high and holy destinies in the world to which we think they are called. It is this: that just as there are in nature hidden forces--in a quiet and apparently harmless cask of gunpowder, or electric battery, for instance--which lie concealed until the right spark calls forth their latent power into action, so there are, in many more individuals than we suspect, hidden forces of some kind or other capable of doing greater things than we could ever have antic.i.p.ated, and which require only the right spark of spiritual life and energy to excite them also into vigorous action. It is thus that heroic bravery and sublime self-sacrifice have been manifested in the hour of sudden and appalling danger, or during seasons of long and dreadful suffering, by those who were never until then suspected of possessing so great a spirit, and who, but for such an occasion occurring for its manifestation, might have been doomed for ever to remain helplessly among the most commonplace incapables. Had a Grace Darling or a Florence Nightingale been known only as a sitter or pewholder in a congregation, they might have been deemed unfit for any work requiring courage, self-sacrifice, or perseverance. But these n.o.ble qualities were all the while in them. In like manner, have we never seen among our working cla.s.ses a man excited by some religious enthusiast or fanatical Mormonite, who all at once seemed inspired with new powers, braved the sneers of companions, consented to be dipped in the next river, turned his small stock of supposed knowledge into immediate use, exhorted, warned, proselytised among his neighbours, spoke in the lanes and streets unabashed, and gathered his knot of disciples from among the crowd of his old comrades, thus giving token of a force having been lying hid in one who seemed capable only of work on week-days and of sleep on Sundays. There is not a Hindu fakir, who swings from a hook in the muscles of his back, or measures with his body a long pilgrimage to Juggernaut; not a Popish devotee, who braves the opinion of society with naked feet, comical garment, and self-imposed "bodily exercise," but demonstrates what a man can and will do, if the mainspring of his being is touched. There is not a sailor or soldier who does not, at sea or in battle, shew a greatness which he seems incapable of when seen in ordinary circ.u.mstances. It is thus, we repeat it, that most undoubtedly there are, in every congregation, men and women who have in them great powers of some kind, which have been given them by G.o.d, and which, though lying dormant, are capable of being brought out, in a greater or less degree, by fitting causes. Nay, every man is enriched with some talent or gift--if we would only discover it and bring it into action--which, if educated and properly directed, is capable of enriching others to a far greater extent than he himself is the least aware of. But what power will develop this force? What power, we reply, in the universe is so fitted to do so, and to bring out of a man all that is in him, and to direct all the force of his being to worthy and enn.o.bling objects, as the power of a living Christianity? If the love of Jesus Christ and Him crucified, understood, believed, felt, does not kindle all the love in a man's heart, and fire it with all the enthusiasm, and inspire it with all the bravery of self-sacrifice, and nerve it with all the indomitable perseverance of which it is capable, then we know nothing else which can do this, or anything like this.

Christianity has not become effete! It is still the "power of G.o.d and the wisdom of G.o.d." It is still mighty in pulling down strongholds. It can still convert "the elements we have to work upon" into instruments of righteousness, and "make the foolish things of the world to confound the wise;" and "the weak things of the world to confound the things that are mighty; and the base things of the world, and things that are despised, and things that are not, to bring to nought the things that are." But we must have real, living, and undying faith in Christ's life and power to do this, and be earnest in personal and social prayer; and then only will we be able to judge as to the capabilities of "the elements we have to work upon."

There is no department of congregational work in which the personal ministration of the individual members is more required than in its _Home Mission_. The sphere of this mission must necessarily be a district in which the members of the congregation can labour. We may a.s.sume that there is no district even in this Christian land in which are not to be found a number who require to be instructed in the gospel, and brought into the fellows.h.i.+p of the Christian Church, as well as a number who require to be ministered to in private owing to the infirmities of their bodies, the bereavements in their households, or other necessity of supplying their temporal or spiritual wants.

In large cities not only does each district inhabited by the poorer cla.s.ses abound in what has been termed a "home heathenism;" but this population is so fluctuating from month to month, that a more extended and vigorous agency is required to make use of the brief opportunity given us for doing it any good.

Now, one thing we hold as settled by the whole design of Christianity, and amply confirmed by daily experience and observation of human nature, and that is, that to seek and save the lost, a _living_ agency is absolutely necessary. Religious tracts alone won't do. Far be it from us to write in an apparently slighting manner of what we so greatly value as good tracts, when we can find them. But, on the other hand, let us beware of exaggerating the power of such an agency, or demanding impossibilities from it. A great number in our large cities and manufacturing districts who require to be reclaimed from ignorance and vice cannot read at all. Those who can do so are yet so imperfectly instructed in the art as to be utterly unable to comprehend a continuous narrative of facts, far less any exposition of doctrine or duty; while those best able are not always willing to read anything of a religious character. The most efficient method, in our opinion, of making use of tracts in all such cases, is to read them, when possible, to others, and, if necessary, explain them, and _then_ distribute them. But what is a dead tract to a living person?--what is any description of Christianity on paper, as compared to the living epistle, which all men can read?

_We want Christian men and women_; not their books or their money only, but _themselves_. The poor and needy ones who, in this great turmoil of life, have found no helper among their fellows; the wicked and outcast, whose hand is against every man's, because they have found, by dire experience of the world's selfishness, how every man's hand is against them; the prodigal and broken-hearted children of the human family, who have the bitterest thoughts of G.o.d and man, if they have any thoughts at all beyond their own busy contrivances how to live and to indulge their craving pa.s.sions,--all these, by the mesmerism of the heart, and by means of that great witness, conscience, which G.o.d, in mercy, leaves as a light from heaven in the most abject dwelling on earth, can, to some extent, read the living epistle of a renewed soul, written in the divine characters of the Holy Spirit. They can see and feel, as they never did anything else in this world, the love which calmly s.h.i.+nes in that eye, telling of inward light and peace possessed, and of a place of rest found and enjoyed by the weary heart! They can understand and appreciate the unselfishness--to them a thing hitherto hardly dreamt of--which prompted this visit from a home of comfort or refinement, to an unknown abode of squalor or disease, and which expresses itself in those kind words and looks that accompany the visit. They can perceive the reality of the piety, which also reads to them, in touching tones, the glory of Him who came to seek and save the lost; and their souls cannot refuse some amen, however faint, echoed by their very misery, and from their yearnings for a good they have never known, to that earnest prayer of faith uttered, in the bonds of a common brotherhood, to one who is addressed as a common Father, through a common Lord.

If ever society is to be regenerated, it is by the agency of living brothers and sisters in the Lord; and every plan, however apparently wise, for recovering mankind from their degradation, and which does not make the _personal_ ministrations of Christian men and women an essential part of it, its very _life_, is doomed, we think, to perish.

It is thus that our Father has ever dealt with His lost children. He has in every age of the world spoken to men by living men; and "G.o.d, who at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake unto our fathers by the prophets, has in these latter days spoken to us by his Son!"

But are there any willing to labour? Yes; many are labouring, and thousands in this land are prepared in spirit to join them; for every Christian has a longing to do something for G.o.d's kingdom on earth, and to employ usefully time and talents which he feels are running to waste. Why, then, with so much to do through a living agency, and with a great army of living agents yet unemployed, is there so little done? We reply again, from want of congregational organisation. Our congregations want order, method, arrangement. There is not yet a sufficiently clear apprehension of what their calling is in the world, or of the work given them to do; nor is there found that wise and authoritative congregational or church direction and government, which could at least suggest, if not a.s.sign, fitting work for each member, and a fitting member for each work. Hence little, comparatively, is accomplished. The most willing church-member gazes over a great city, and asks in despair, "What am I to do here?" And what would the bravest soldiers accomplish in the day of battle, if they asked the same question in vain? What would a thousand of our best workmen do in a large factory, if they entered it with willing hands, yet having no place or work a.s.signed to them? And thus it is with many really self-denying Christians; because a practicable and definite field of labour is not pointed out, the necessary result is idleness--unwilling idleness; or self-organised and self-governed "a.s.sociations,"

"committees," "societies," spring up to accomplish what the Christian society itself was designed to, and could accomplish in a much more efficient and orderly manner; or, as it more frequently happens, those energies and ardent feelings, and love of excitement even, which could have found sufficient scope for healthy exercise in such practical labours of faith and love as we have alluded to, are soon engrossed by merely speculative questions about "the church," or about "religion,"

and the stream which, had it been directed into a right channel, and to a right point, would have been made a power for immense good, soon rushes over the land a wide-spread, muddy, devastating flood, oozes out into stagnant marshes, full of miasma and fever, or evaporates into thin air!

THE CURE FOR SCHISM.

"Schisms" are not peculiar to the Church of the present day, nor are they "the result of Protestantism," as some allege, unless Protestantism is understood to represent that doctrine which is termed "the right of private judgment," but which might be described rather as the absolute necessity for each man to believe the truth for himself, and not to be satisfied that another man should see and believe it for him. This "doctrine," which is essential to the reception of any truth whatever, must necessarily open the way to error; just as the possession of reason, which is essential to a man's thinking at all, must, in every case, involve the risk of his thinking wrong.

But we know something of a Church founded by an apostle, presided over for a time by an apostle, which was full of schisms. This was the Church of Corinth. (See First Epistle to the Corinthians, first three chapters.)

These schisms were marked by differences of mind and judgment; and by "envying, strife, and divisions." Its "Protestantism" may, no doubt, have occasioned this.

But along with these divisions, and partly their cause, partly their effect, there was not only a warm attachment to particular ministers, but positive antagonism to others professing the same faith, and doing the same work. From the sameness of human nature in every age, we can quite understand how each party would defend their sectarianism. "We are of Apollos," some might have thus said. "We do not admire Peter.

He is too much of a Jew for us; besides, he denied his Lord, and dissembled along with Barnabas at Antioch. We prefer our own minister even to Paul. He is a much more eloquent man; of a much more commanding figure and appearance; and how profound he is in his knowledge of the Scriptures!" "We are of Paul," others might have cried; "for he was chosen specially by Christ; and he has been honoured by Him more than all; and does not the Church of Corinth, moreover, owe its very existence to his preaching and labours? It is a shame to belong to any other!" "We cling to Peter," a third party might have said; "he lived with Christ when He was on earth, saw His miracles, heard His words, was treated after the resurrection with special love, and received from Him a special commission to feed His sheep. Apollos is no _apostle_; and as for Paul, he persecuted the Church, and confesses himself that he is not meet to be called an apostle. Apollos is good, Paul better, but Peter is best!" "We belong to neither," others could have boasted: "your divisions are so many, your differences so great, that we have retired from all your meetings in weariness; and each of us are of Christ only, and call no man master but Him; you should all join us, the _Christians_:"--thus making use of the very name of Christ to characterise a sect. Such were some of the schisms; and to the schismatics St Paul said, "Ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men? For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I of Apollos; are ye not carnal?"

The apostle desired to heal those schisms, and to bring the members of the Church into one mind. How did he endeavour to effect this?

Had he been a Papist, he might have said--"Why thus divided? Because you are not building on the one true foundation, which is Peter! Do you not understand the meaning of the name, _Cephas_, or the Rock, given to him, and intended to teach all Christians that the temple of the Church was to be built upon _this_ rock, and this only; against which the gates of h.e.l.l cannot prevail? Therefore, you who say, 'I am of Cephas,' are right; all others are schismatics." Never, apparently, had a man a better opportunity of revealing to the world this great secret of unity than St. Paul had, if such was his faith, especially when he compares the Church to a building, and speaks of a foundation-stone. "As a wise master-builder," he says, "I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon.... For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is"--Cephas, or the rock? No!

but "_Jesus Christ_." Not one word of Cephas as the centre of unity.

Strange silence for a "Roman Catholic!"

Had Paul been a "High Churchman," viewing with deep awe the mystery of sacramental grace, we can understand how he would have spoken to the schismatic Corinthians of the vast importance of their submitting to absolute apostolic authority, and of "the awful powers with which G.o.d's ministers had been vested, of regenerating souls by the waters of baptism;" and how "such a clergy should command unqualified obedience." If these, or anything like these, were Paul's sentiments, and such as we are every day familiar with, it is not easy, to say the least of it, to account for his language to the Corinthians. What does _he_ say of the exalted privilege of being able to baptize? "I thank G.o.d I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:" strange words from a "High Churchman!" or a "High" Baptist! "I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, _I know not_ whether I baptized any other:" strange forgetfulness on such a supposed centre point of Church unity! "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:" strange idea of the relative importance of preaching and baptizing for a "High Churchman" to hold! And as to the "commanding authority" of the apostles, merely because they were apostles, apart from, the commanding authority of the eternal truth which they "commended" to the conscience and judgment of their hearers, Paul asks, "Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos?" Methinks we hear some exclaim: "Oh, these men were the greatest, the most remarkable, the"--We will not, however, take up s.p.a.ce by repeating the laudations with which some would exalt their authority, with the view of magnifying the mere official authority of the clergy. But what says the apostle himself? He says they were only "ministers by whom ye believed." It was not the minister who did good, but the truth which he ministered, and which he had received from another. It was not the man who sowed the seed, or the basket which held it, that gave the crop; but the living seed itself. Hence he adds: "So then neither is he that planteth _anything_, nor he that watereth!" What? Neither presbyter nor bishop, neither Paul nor Apollos, _anything_? Strange words, again we say, from a "High Churchman," whether Episcopalian, Presbyterian, or any other denomination; _for "High Churchmen" are common to all Churches_. Yet not strange from St Paul, who knew how true his words were, and that not man, but G.o.d, who gave the increase, was "everything."

What, then, was the apostle's method of curing schism, and of making men truly one who had been "divided?"

He directed every eye, and every heart, and every spirit, to one object--JESUS CHRIST, the personal Saviour, the centre and source of unity; in fellows.h.i.+p with whom all men would find their fellows.h.i.+p with each other.

"We preach Christ crucified." "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." These are his declarations. And his conclusion from this great and blessed principle is just what we might expect: "He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord." "Let no man glory in men: for all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come: all are yours; and ye are Christ's, and Christ is G.o.d's."

Professing Christians would do well to weigh the apostle's cure of schism. Our divisions of heart and alienation of spirit are unworthy of educated men, and of the citizens of a free state, while they are in spirit utterly subversive of the whole principles of Protestantism.

What! not able to hear the gospel preached from the lips of a minister of another church, nor to remember Jesus with him or his people?

Not willing even to be on kind, or perhaps on speaking terms with a brother minister? Such things not only have been, but _are_; and while, thank G.o.d, they are repudiated and detested by men of all Churches, they are common, we fear, among too many. No wonder Roman Catholics point at our frequent boasting of Protestant "oneness in all essentials," and ask with triumph, how it happens, then, that we are such enemies on mere non-essentials? How it is that we pretend to be one when attacking Papists, and then turn our backs on each other when left alone? No wonder the High Churchman of England asks the Presbyterians in Scotland to forgive _him_ if he never enters our Presbyterian churches, hears our clergy, partakes of our sacraments, when so very many among ourselves practically excommunicate each other. No wonder the infidel lecturer describes to crowds of intelligent mechanics, in vivid and powerful language, the spectacle presented by many among our Christian clergy and people, and asks, with a smile of derision, If _ithis_ is a religion of love which they see around them--if these men believe the gospel--and if Christians have really more kindness and courtesy than "publicans and sinners?"

Worse than all, no wonder our churches languish, and men are asking with pain, why the ministry is not producing more true spiritual fruit, which is love to G.o.d and man? The Churches are, no doubt, _doing_ much. We have meetings, a.s.sociations, and organisations, with no end of committees, resolutions, and motions; we raise large sums of money; we have large congregations;--yet all this, and much more, we can do from pride, vanity, love of party, love of power, the spirit of proselytism, and the like. We may possess many gifts, understand mysteries and all knowledge; we may bestow our goods to feed the poor, in zeal for Church or party we may be willing to give our bodies to be burned; but before G.o.d it profiteth us nothing, unless we have the "love that suffereth long, and is kind, that envieth not, that vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things,"

Surely our schisms may be healed if there be a Saviour thus to heal them!

One word in conclusion. Neither the letter nor the spirit of the apostle's teaching condemn a warm and firm attachment to "our own Church," but antagonism only to other Churches. A soldier may love, and ought to love his own regiment with peculiar affection, more especially if he has been born in it, and brought up from childhood, as it were, in its ranks. And it should be his honest pride to see that it is one of the best drilled, most orderly, most efficient, and bravest in the whole army. But that is no reason why he should go about with a drum to recruit from, weaken, or break up other regiments; or why he should deny that there _are_ other regiments which equally belong to the grand army, and may be even more efficient than his own, though they do not wear the exact pattern of uniform, or may charge on horseback while his marches on foot, or possess cannon while his own have but small arms. Why should he be jealous of their achievements? Why should he be disposed to fight against them instead of against the common enemy? And, worse than all, why a.s.sert and boast that this one regiment of his is _the_ army, while all others are mere unauthorised volunteers, or enemies in disguise? It is full time for sensible men to give up this vain boasting, proud antagonism, and irritating ambitious proselytism.

Instead, therefore, of any man attempting, what is impossible during a lifetime, to understand the distinctive principles of each of the many sections of the Christian Church, so as to "join" that one which seems most "pure" and "scriptural," he is much better, as a rule, to remain, if it is at all possible for him, in the Church of his fathers, in which he was baptized and reared, and to do all in his power, by his example, his prayers, and his steady, manly, firm attachment, to make "his own Church" more efficient, and to permit others, without interference, to do the same. Thus may a man be a good Presbyterian in Scotland, and also a good Episcopalian in England, or possibly a Nonconformist in both, unless he believes in the Divine origin and authority of some one ecclesiastical system, and the mundane origin of all others. With perfect consistency and sincerity he may dearly love his Church, but yet love Christians more, because he loves Christ best of all.

These sentiments may be considered by many good Christians as sinfully "lat.i.tudinarian;" but to all who think so we would suggest the following simple experiment. When they have perused with care and reflection those portions of the Epistles of St Paul, and those incidents in his missionary journeys, which reveal most clearly what we might term his "church views," let them conceive of this same holy apostle suddenly awaking from his grave and visiting the different churches in our country, and then honestly say, from what they know of his character and teaching, whether they think it improbable or impossible that he would countenance all our churches in so far as they sincerely desired to do G.o.d's will and advance His kingdom. Would he not as of old say, "Grace be with all who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity!"

"Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: they shall prosper that love thee.

For my brethren and companions' sakes, I will now say, Peace be within thee. Because of the house of the Lord our G.o.d I will seek thy _good_."