§rom flic fetfirarg of (professor ^amucf (ttttffer in (ntcmorg of 3u£). ’ i w - « • ' ■ * - 4 *. •■ :>• \ -. -/ .. Vi V * t, • , . ' , - >;:-T- j* *. .A i £ APPEAL TO THE AMERICAN CHURCHES, WITH A PLAN FOR CATHOLIC UNION. y BY S. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D. Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theol. Sem. of Gen. Synod of the Lutheran Church, Gettysburg, Pa. NEW YORK: GOULD & NEWMAN: ,1 8 3 8 . PREFACE. The following Appeal is affectionately addressed to the American churches of every denomination, in the conviction, that the subject of which it treats, is of incalculable importance to the conversion of the world ; and in the hope, that the plan of union proposed, is accordant with the spirit of the divine Master. On the American churches, so happily exempt from all entrammeling alliance with civil government, God seems specially to have devolved the duty to review the history of his visible kingdom, and, instructed by the lessons of former ages, to adopt an organization which will arrest the intestine strife of Christian brethren, and unite all their energies in effective efforts to extend the triumphs of the cross to every nation upon earth ; an organization, which, whilst it will restore the church to the substantial unity of the apostolic age , will also preserve that unity throughout the whole extent of her predicted triumphs over the heathen world. The writer feels it alike due to himself, to his subject, and to those of whom he asks a hearing, to state that the sentiments of the following appeal were not hastily adopted, but are the de¬ liberate result of a conscientious study of the subject, first urg¬ ed on him by providential circumstances about twenty years ago, and frequently since pursued by extensive investigations into the organization and experience of the church in the differ¬ ent ages of her history. In presenting these results, he sought the utmost brevity ; and yet, as the popular reader was also contemplated, some observations and statements were necessa¬ rily introduced, which would be superfluous, were he writing for the learned alone. PREFACE. He now commends these pages to the candid and indulgent examination of “ those that love the Lord,” of every name. He requests them to test the sentiments advanced, not by their ecclesiastical standards, which are the work of uninspired though good men, but by the law and the testimony, by the inspired word of God. Let them solemnly inquire, whether the Pro¬ testant churches, organized and operating on the plan here pro¬ posed, would not approximate much nearer to the apostolic church than they now do, whether they would not act much more efficiently and harmoniously in advancing the triumphs of the cross in the heathen and papal world, and whether we might not even hope again to see the days, when surrounding observ¬ ers will exclaim, u See how these Christians love one another.” If much is to be effected in this great enterprise, it must be through the cooperation and influence of religious editors and other prominent individuals in every denomination of the Chris¬ tian church, by the public expression of their opinions, and by the discussion of the subject in ecclesiastical judicatories, in the¬ ological institutions, and by individual congregations. The wri¬ ter theiefore lequests editors of religious periodicals and papers favorable to the object, whose dimensions admit of it, to transfer to their columns, unaltered, the entire plan itself, in one or sev¬ eral articles, including also the Apostolic , Protestant Confes¬ sion, and the mode of operation. He also particularly com¬ mends this Appeal to the “ American Society for the promo¬ tion of Christian Union,” and all similar Associations that may be formed in our land. And most of all would he commend it to the blessing and disposal of that divine Saviour, from a desire to advance whose glory, he trusts these pages proceeded. S. S. SCHMUCKER. Theo’l. be in. Grettyshurn - March 2(5, 1838. APPEAL, ETC. CHAPTER I. ITatEQ ayis, rriqrjaov amovg ev tm ovofxaxi crop, ovg dsdcoxug /not, IVa ojtnv tv , xa&bjg fjfttlg. —Jesus. Jug Kvqiog , [tla niang, IV flam urfxa. —Paul. When the sincere and unsophisticated Christian contemplates the image of the church as delineated both in its theory and practice by the Saviour and his apostles, he is charmed by the delightful spirit of unity and brotherly love by which it is char¬ acterized. When he hears the beloved disciple declare “ God is love, and they that dwell in love dwell in God and again, “ Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knoweth not God ; for God is love and again, “ Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another—If any man say I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar ; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ? And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love his brother also.”—When the Christian listens to such declara¬ tions as these, and numerous others of similar import; when forgetting things as they exist around him, he brings his whole soul under the influence of this love to God and the brethren ; he perceives the moral beauty of these sentiments, and finds his heart vibrate in delightful unison with them. But when he awakes from this fascinating dream and beholds the body of Christ rent into different divisions, separately organized, pro¬ fessing different creeds, denouncing each other as in error, and often times, hating and being hated ; his spirit is grieved within him, and he asks how can these things be among brethren ? In the sacred record he looks in vain for the sectarian parties which 4 Dr. Schmucker’’s Appeal. now constitute all that is seen of the church of the Redeemer; he finds nothing there of Lutherans, of Presbyterians, of Metho¬ dists, of Episcopalians, of Baptists. But he sees that when the formation of such parties was attempted at Corinth, Paul deemed it necessary to write them a long letter, and besought them by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to have no divis¬ ions among them. The Christian is therefore constrained to mourn over the desolations of Zion and to meet the solemn in¬ quiry, cannot a balm be found for the ulcerous divisions which deface the body of Christ ? Many such hearts there happily are at the present day, which are relenting from the rigor of party organization and sectarian asperity. The love of Christ, that sacred flame which warms them, and bids them strive together for the con¬ version of a world, also melts down the walls of partition, which might well enough keep Jews asunder from Gentiles, but was never permitted to sever one Jew from another, and much less ought now to separate a Christian from his brother. Many are pondering these things in their hearts, and asking ought breth¬ ren to be thus estranged J ought Ephraim thus to envy Judah, and Judah to vex Ephraim ? Their number too is multiplying. Brotherly love and Christian liberality are on the whole progres¬ sive, and tender increasing facilities,—whilst they urge the im¬ perious obligation of this inquiry upon every enlightened and sanctified intellect. Happily many of the ablest heads and noblest hearts in Christendom feel called to review the ground , which the Protestant churches have been led to assume partly by op¬ tion, partly by inconsideration , and partly by the coercion of circumstances. The successful prosecution of this inquiry de¬ mands the casting off of the prejudices of education and long established habits, a recurrence to the elementary principles of Christianity, of Christian doctrine, of Christian government, of Christian duty: and the men, be they ministers or be they lay¬ men, who would regard this subject with indifference, or dis¬ miss it with a sneer, may well inquire whether the love of Christ dwells in them. In this great concern not self-interest, but the interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom, should be the mo¬ tive of our actions ; not victory, but truth should be our aim. In this incipient stage of our discussion, we would premise a few principles, or draw a few lines, by which the general course of our investigation may be recognized and the results in some degree be anticipated at which we shall arrive. It is admitted, 5 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. a) As one house cannot contain all the Christians in the world, or in a particular country, there must necessarily be different houses of worship. b) As all Christians in a particular country cannot be incor¬ porated into one congregation to enjoy the ordinances of the gospel, and to execute the duties of mutual edification, super¬ vision and discipline ; there must be different congregations , as there were in the days of the apostles; whatever may be the proper principle for their construction, and the proper bond for their union with each other. c) We premise as a point conceded, that all the several de¬ nominations termed orthodox, which are but clusters of such different congregations, are parts of the true visible church of Christ; because, in the conscientious judgment of all enlight¬ ened Christians, they hold the essentials of the gospel scheme of faith and practice ; and secondly, because the Saviour himself has acknowledged them as such by the seal of his grace and Spirit. “ When James, Cephas and John perceived the grace that was given to me,” says Paul, to the Galatians,* “ they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” And where is the bigot, who at the present day, would claim his to be the only true church, and thus repudiate all others as synagogues of Satan ? d) As these denominations hold dissentient views on some nonessential points, it is demonstrable that all except one of them must entertain some error. For of two contrary opinions only one can be true. But the pretension that any one sect is right in all things, and all others in error so far as they diverge from this one, is highly improbable in itself, is forbidden by Christian humility, by a knowledge of human nature, and by the amount of talent, learning and piety in all the several churches. Hence some error, in all probability, is an attribute of each sect. e) Finally, we premise that ministers and laymen, though pious, are fallible, are sanctified but in part and liable to temp¬ tation from secular motives and feelings, even in things per¬ taining to the Redeemer’s kingdom. Hence they are all un¬ der obligation to review their course of thought and action, and ought to be willing, for the glory of their God and Saviour, to retrace and amend whatever may be found amiss. This ob- * Chap. 2: 9. 2 6 Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal. ligation devolves alike upon the writer and the reader. With a deep impression of its importance, its claims are urged on your present attention. Under the presumption therefore that in these diversities of opinion we are all more or less in error, let us inquire whether it is right that the body of Christ should on account of these diver¬ sities be rent into so many different parts, under circumstances creating different interests in each, and strongly tending to alien¬ ate their affections, and dissolve that bond of fraternal love, by which they should be united, or whether it is the duty of Chris¬ tians to endeavor to heal these divisions, and promote unity among all whom they profess to regard as disciples of Christ. The will of our divine Master will become apparent to us whilst we successively consider, I. The Script aval injunctions. II. The example of the apostles and primitive Christians. III. The consequences which these divisions produce. In the wealthy and corrupt city of Corinth, a Christian church nad been planted by Paul, watered by the eloquent Apollos, and blessed by him, from whom alone can come any genuine increase. In this church, it seems, there appeared symptoms of the spirit of sectarianism, that spirit, “ which now worketh” not only u among the children of disobedience/’ who have a name to live whilst they are dead but which often mars the en¬ joyment and tarnishes the graces of the members of Christ’s spirit¬ ual body. The Corinthian brethren had long been familiar with the several sects of heathen philosophers and religionists and by a natural transition were led to array themselves into parties accord¬ ing to some religious differences which arose among them. Some said “ I am of Paul,” probably because he first laid the foundation of the Corinthian church ;* others said “ I am of Apollos,” per¬ haps on account of his superior eloquence ; and others said u I am of Cephas,” either because like Peter, they cherished Jew¬ ish predilections, or were converted by him elsewhere. Here then was an attempt to introduce different sects or religious de¬ nominations into the church of Christ, ranged under different leaders such as Paul, Apollos, Peter, Luther, Calvin, Zuingli or Wesley; and what are the feelings of the noble-minded Paul? Does he approve of such a course? Let us hear his own words, my brethren, and pray that the spirit of our lacerated * Chap. 3:10. Acts 18:11. 7 Dr. Schmiickei^s Appeal. Master may enable us to understand them. “ I beseech you, brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ,” (by the hope you cherish through him, by his suffering, by his blood), I beseech you, “ that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms (apo^aia) or sects among you ; but that ye be joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions (tpideg) among you : namely that every one of you saith,” either “ I am of Paul” (he is my leader), “ or I am of Apollos, or I am of Peter, or I am of Christ. Is Christ,” (i. e. the body of Christ) “ di¬ vided ? Was Paul” (or either of those whose names ye assume and whom ye wish to place at the side of Christ as leaders or heads of the church) “ crucified for you ? Or were ye baptized into the name of Paul (or of Apollos, or of Peter, so that ye were received into their church, and not into the church of Christ ?) “ I thank God,” (since ye thus abuse the privi¬ lege of having been baptized) “ that I baptized none of you except Crispus” (the ruler of the synagogue) “ and Gaius” (whose hos¬ pitality I enjoyed whilst at Corinth ;) so that ye cannot with any semblance of truth allege, that I baptized you in my own name and thus formed a peculiar sect of Christians. Such is the powerful and decided testimony given by the in¬ spired apostle Paul, against the spirit of sectarianism. Ought not every man who believes himself a Christian, to feel the force of this rebuke and ask, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do to heal thy wounded body ? The apostle does not even introduce into his argument the points of diversity among them, on ac¬ count of which they were arraying themselves into different parties. The simple facts that they were baptized into Christ, and into Christ alone, i. e. were members of the church in good standing, and that Christ must not be divided, are the only argu¬ ments which he deems requisite to prove the impropriety of their divisions and of their assumption of different names. He would have them Christians and nothing but Christians; not Pauline Christians, nor Apolline, nor Cephine, nor Lutheran, nor Cal vinis- tic, nor Wesleyan Christians, not because he had any antipathy to Apollos or Peter; but because any such divisions based on dif¬ ference of opinions or personal attachments naturally tended to rend asunder the body of Christ. Let it be distinctly remem¬ bered then, that the argument of Paul for the unity of the Re¬ deemer’s visible church is twofold; first, he maintains that this / 8 Dr . Schmucker's Appeal. unity and the impropriety of divisions on party-grounds are evi¬ dently presupposed by the fact, that all its members are baptized into the name of Christ alone ; and secondly from the fact that all '■ divisions based on difference, are equivalent to dividing the one body of Christ. Nor does he here affix any limitations to these principles, and no uninspired authority is competent to prescribe any others than such as may indubitably flow from other inspired declarations or from the obvious nature of Christianity itself. The apostle Paul therefore distinctly forbids the cutting up of those whom he would acknowledge as Christians at all, into dif¬ ferent parties or sects. And this he does even by anticipation, for in all probability, these parties had not yet fully separated from one another, nor renounced ecclesiastical inter-communion. Yet there were in the apostolic age, as well as at present, men who claimed to be Christians, but whom this great apostle was unwilling to acknowledge as such, and commanded “ after the first and second admonition, to reject.”* In the passage, “A man that is a heretic ( algsiwov avftgw- 7iov ) after the first and second admonition reject,” the apostle himself limits the application of the principles above urged on the Corinthians, by showing that although he forbade the form¬ ation of sects or divisions among Christians on the ground of difference, yet there were occasionally persons in the church, who if incorrigible, deserved to be cast out of it altogether. The crime which in the judgment of Paul merited this punish¬ ment, he designates by the term heretical {aigeTiyiovf which in the English language distinctly refers to one who denies a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The original word also sometimes seems to have this sense ; but more frequently it signifies a schismatic, one who makes a division, or forms a sect. In the former acceptation, the passage inculcates the salutary duty, acknowledged and practised by all the orthodox churches of the land, of excluding from their communion and from mem¬ bership, those who deny a fundamental doctrine of the gospel, that is a doctrine unitedly believed by all the orthodox churches, and regarded as essential by them. Some denominations would exercise still greater rigor, and exclude from their communion the believers of doctrines held by such sister churches, as they professedly and sincerely regard as churches of Christ. But Paul wholly repudiates those divisions grounded on diversity of * Titus 3: 10. Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. 9 sentiment, which would render it possible for a brother Chris¬ tian, when ejected from one portion of the Saviour’s church to find admission to another. At all events, the church in his day was not thus divided, and those whose excommunication he en¬ joined, must in his judgment have forfeited all claim to the Christian profession. The apostles’s rule, therefore, as limited by himself, would be that we ought not to separate from our brethren, for any error which we believe them to entertain, and which does not in our most conscientious judgment deprive them of all claim to the character of Christians. The primitive import of the Greek word aigsoig (heresy) is - selection , choice. Thus it is used by many ancient Greek wri¬ ters. The following passage of Aeschines Socrat. (Dial. II. 3,) amounts, if not to a definition, yet to the most appropriate ex¬ emplification of this sense of the term : ei dt xlg aoc didotrj ai~ geoiv xovxoiv , noxegov uv (jqvXoio , In this sense we also meet it in the Septuagint; (Lev. 27 : 18 and 21,) as equivalent to free will, voluntarily. It is also employed to designate a pe¬ culiar kind of discipline or mode of living , that has been vol¬ untarily assumed. But its more common signification* is schism , division , sect. Thus Dionys. Halic. (Ep. I. ad Ammaeum. c. 7.) says of Aristotle: He was not the leader or head of a school, nor did he form a sect of his own (ovxs oyolrig riyov^u- vog, ovx ’ idiav mnoujucog aigeoiv.) It is used by classic writers to designate the several philosophic sects, the Stoics, the Epi¬ cureans, the Peripatetics, etc. It occurs nine times in the New Testament and in the majority of cases it is translated sect in the common version. In the other cases it might with equal propriety be rendered in the same way,j* as indeed it is by many distinguished translators. In its primitive and most cur¬ rent signification, therefore, the word (aigeoig) conveys no re¬ proach. It is used to designate the sect of Pharisees ,% the sect * Rosenmiiller defines aigeaig thus : ‘'Aigsaewg vox, per se media est. Ubi in rnalam partem sumitur significat idem quod o^/cqua ; sed restringitur ad ea dissidea quae fiunt ex opinionum diversitate. f 2 Pet. 2:1. 1 Cor. 11: 9. | Acts 15:5: But there rose up certain of the sect (aigecng) of the Pharisees, who believed saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 25: 6 : The Jews knew me from the beginning if they would testify, that af¬ ter the most straitest sect {a'igeaig) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee. 10 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. of Sadducees,* * * § and the sect of the Nazarenes or Christians.! In all the passages where it is rendered sect, in the common ver¬ sion, it signifies a party of persons who have separated them¬ selves from others professedly pursuing the same end, over whom they profess to have some advantages. Here we have sects substantially corresponding to those of our days, sects based ✓ not on geographical lines, but on doctrinal diversities like our own, and yet what does Paul say concerning such sects in the church of Christ ? Using the very same word by which he designated the sect of the Pharisees, (in an adjective form,) he declares: Him that is a sectarian man (aigeiwov dvQQwnov} an originator or supporter of sects in the Christian church, after the first and second admonition, reject , exclude from your com¬ munion and intercourse, avoid. Here we have the apostle again distinctly condemning the formation of sects in the Christian church, using the very identical term by which the Pharisees and Sadducees are designated in the New Testament and the several sects of their philosophers by classic Greeks. Again, in the third chapter of his first epistle to the Corin¬ thians,! Paul denounces such divisions in the Christian church as “carnal.” “For, (says he) 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 am of Apollos, are ye not carnal V 9 How then can divisions es¬ sentially similar, among modern Christians, be pleasing in the sight of God ? In his letter to the Galatians,$ this same apos¬ tle classes these heresies or divisions among “ the works of the fleshy He beseeches the Romans,|| to “ mark, (gxot ie7v) at¬ tentively to observe, or watch those, “ who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine (or rather the instruction or advice) which ye have learned : and avoid them.” But it would be an endless work to present all the passages, in which the sacred volume inculcates the unity of the church, and de¬ precates its disruption into sects. Let one other passage termi¬ nate this branch of our argument. To the same Corinthians,H * Acts 5: 17: Then the high priest rose up and all they that were with him, which is the sect (cugscng) of the Sadducees. f Acts 24:5,14. 28: 22. J v. 3: 4. § Gal. 5: 20: The works of the flesh are—wrath, strife, heresy, or sects, divisions. || 16: 17. H 12:12. 11 Dr. Schmuckei'’s Appeal. he says : u 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 baptiz¬ ed 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 he 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 sa¬ credly 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 con¬ duct so much that (he says) “ at Antioch I withstood him to the face, for he was to be blamed :”f 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 conten¬ tion 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 * See also Eph. 4 : 3—6. f Gal. 2:11—14. 12 Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal. which divide some of the religious denominations of our land, (the former enjoining circumcision* and other ceremonial ob¬ servances) ;j* yet they did not divide the church into diffeient 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 re¬ gard it—But why dost thou judge (condemn) thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought (despise) thy brother? for vve 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 con¬ duct. It is certain too that during several hundred years, there continued to be persons in the church , who exhibited a linger¬ ing attachment to the Mosaic ceremonial observances, yet they were not excluded nor advised to form themselves into a sepa¬ rate sect. The observance of the Lord’s day or Christian Sab¬ bath was universal but some Christians during several cen- # Acts 15 : 5. f 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 ad¬ duce the testimony of Justin Martyr, who was born three or four years after the death of the apostle John, in his Apology for the Chris¬ tians, 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 ^Anofivi]yovsvyaTa) 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 exam¬ ples ; 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 thanks¬ givings according to his ability (ocr^ dvvayig avicp) and the people re¬ spond by saying Amen. A distribution and participation of the things blessed, takes place to each one present, and to those absent it is sent 13 Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal. 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 divid¬ ing 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 collect¬ ed 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 com¬ monly 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.” Mur¬ dock’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 rais¬ ed about this time in consequence of a difference of opinion respect¬ ing the observance of the festival (of the Saviour’s) passover.”_After narrating the history of this discussion and the efforts of Victor, bish¬ op 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, when¬ ever they came to them.— JVeither 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 per¬ suade 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 ob¬ serve and those that did not observe, maintaining the peace.” Euseb, Book V. chap. 24. 3 14 Dr . Schmucker’s Appeal. fer from other baptists only in regard to the time of observing the Christian Sabbath ; they believing that the seventh day con¬ tinues to be the proper one under the New Testament dispensa¬ tion, 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 con¬ scientious difference of opinion. Each one was to be fully per¬ suaded in his own mind, and prepare to stand with his brother before the judgment seat of Christ. Neither was to sit in judg¬ ment 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 opin¬ ions, 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. 15 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. adelphia, the church in Jerusalem, the church at Philippi, and in many other places ; but never of the Pauline church in Cor¬ inth, 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 ol 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 certain¬ ly 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 unde¬ niable. 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 direct¬ ly the reverse !! The writer does not from these facts infer the obligation of Christians immediately to renounce their pres¬ ent organizations and all merge into one church. Difficulties now exist arising from honest diversity of views on church gov¬ ernment, 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 16 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. of feeling, of purpose, of action which exists between the Father and the Son. What can be more reasonable ? If all his dis¬ ciples, all who “ believe in him through the word,” are hereaf¬ ter to inhabit the same heaven, to surround the same throne of God and the Lamb ; would not the principle of sectarian di¬ visions carry discord into those harmonious ranks, and mar their heavenly hallelujahs and grate upon the ears of angels and the Lamb ! No! sectarianism is an acknowledged and — alas that it should be so—a cherished trait of the church on earth, which will never, never be admitted into heaven. And who can doubt that the nearer we can bring the church on earth to the character of the church in heaven, the more pleasing will she be to him that purchased her with his blood. Accordingly Paul informs us : “ That there should be no schism in the body ; but that the members should have the same care one for an¬ other;* and if one member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or if one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it!” But, gracious Lord ! is not directly the reverse of this but too frequently witnessed ? Does not the great mass of the sev¬ eral religious denominations of our land, exhibit any thing else than “ the same care,” for the other members of Christ’s body ? If one denomination suffers, fails of success or meets with dis¬ grace in some unworthy members, do not surrounding denomi¬ nations rather at least tacitly and cheerfully acquiesce if not re¬ joice, hoping that thus more room will be made and facility offered for their own enlargement ? We do not find that mem¬ bers of the same family thus cordially acquiesce or triumph in each others’ misfortune or disgrace. If one brother is visited by any calamity, if he falls a victim to intemperance and bears about in his bloated face the ensign of his disgrace, do we find his brothers and sisters rejoice in it ? Do they not rather sympathize, feel hurt themselves, and mourn over his downfall ? Thus ought it to be among all who deserve the name of Christ. Thus would it be, if the community of interest in the Saviour’s family had not been impaired by sectarian divisions which place several distinct religious families on the same ground, with separate pecuniary interests, with conflicting prejudices, with ri¬ val sectarian aims ! In the apostolic age and for centuries after it, only one Christian church occupied the same field, and thus J three fourths of the causes which originate contention among * 1 Cor. 12:25 Dr. Schmuckers Appeal. 17 modern Christians were avoided. These separate interests, will always create contention, rivalry and jealousies among fal¬ lible men, sanctified hut in part, as long as they are not re¬ moved or their influence in some way counteracted. And, as they did not belong to the church constituted by the. Saviour and his apostles, the solemn duty devolves on all Christians to inquire, how can this evil be remedied ? Again, sectarian divisions of the church impede the impar¬ tial study of the sacred volume by ministers and laymen. The doctrines believed by what are termed the orthodox churches, as well as their forms of government and worship, may be di¬ vided into two classes, those which are undisputed and held by all in common, and those which are disputed by some of them, and which distinguish the sects from each other. The sectari¬ an principle builds a wall of defence around the peculiar opin¬ ions of each sect. It enlists all Christians in defence of the pe¬ culiarities of their denomination, and creates powerful motives of a self-interested and unholy character in vindication of these peculiarities, rather than of the grand truths of Christianity, which are essential to the salvation of all; motives which appeal to the pride of some, to the avarice of others, and to the ambition of a third class. Each member is taught by the very principles of his sinful nature to feel identified with the peculiar interests of his sect. His vanity is flattered by the supposed respectability of his sect, his ambition is at least tempted by the prospect of extended influence or distinction in the ministry or as a layman in the ecclesiastical councils of his extensive and re¬ spectable church, and his avarice is concerned in diminishing his own expenses by the increasing numbers of his fellow-members, or, if a minister, by the ample support which he may obtain. We would not insinuate that all Christians are influenced by these unamiable motives, nor that any true disciple ol the Sa¬ viour is mainly actuated by them. But we fear that the ma¬ jority of professors in the church, are more influenced by these secular considerations, than they are themselves aware. Ac¬ cordingly, the peculiarities of sect acquire a factitious impor¬ tance, are often inculcated with as much assiduity as the great and cardinal doctrines of the gospel. Endless and useless con¬ troversies about these points agitate the church, and disturb her peace. These peculiarities are instilled into the tender minds of children, and are often represented as involving the marrow of salvation. Prejudices are raised in their behalf. The tenets 18 Dr. Schmuckers Appeal. of other denominations are often kept out of view, or stated in a manner but ill calculated for an impartial investigation of God’s truth. The antipathies of the social circle are sometimes ar¬ rayed in opposition, and, may I say, sometimes in ridicule of other denominations ; and even the gentler sex, sisters of her of Bethany, who, sitting at the Master’s feet, imbibed the streams of his love ; sisters of them, who, true to their affection, “ Were last at the cross, And earliest at the grave,” have hated that Saviour in the person of his followers, because they wore not the badge of their sect! have forgotten that their religion is love,—that charity, divine charity is the brightest or¬ nament of their nature ! Under such circumstances, doubts of the sectarian peculiarities inculcated, would expose the ingenuous youth who should avow them, to social inconveniences, to paren¬ tal disapprobation, and rarely does he enjoy ample oportunity for impartial investigation, before adult age. The fact that al¬ most invariably, young persons adopt and prefer the peculiar sectarian views of their parents, is a demonstrative proof that their preference is not built on argument , that the mode of re¬ ligious education in the different churches is unfavorable to im¬ partial investigation. The simple circumstance of parental be¬ lief, is assuredly no satisfactory proof of the creed which we adopt on account of it. For the same reason, we would have been Mohammedans, if bom in Turkey, Papists in Italy, and worshippers of the Grand Lama in Thibet. And ministers of the gospel have still greater obstacles to surmount, as their dis¬ belief of the peculiarities of their sect tarnishes their reputation with their associates, yea, not unfrequently excludes them from their pastoral charge, and their families from daily bread ! Is it not evident, then, that the state of the Christian church amongst us is unfavorable to the impartial study of the volume of divine truth ? Lastly, the principle of sectarian divisions powerfully retards the spiritual conquests of Christianity over the world. Who that knows aught of the divine life, can doubt, that in propor¬ tion as he permits pride, envy, jealousy, hatred to arise in his heart, the spirit of piety languishes, his graces decline and his sense of the divine presence is impaired ? But sectarianism, by which in this discussion we generally mean the principle of di¬ visions on the ground of difference, in nonessentials among those 19 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. who profess to regard each other as fellow Christians, sectarian¬ ism indubitably creates various conflicting interests, presents nu¬ merous occasions and temptations to envy, hatred, jealousy, slan¬ der, and creates an atmosphere around the Christian, in which the flame of piety cannot burn with lustre, and not unfrequently expires. What observer of transpiring scenes can doubt, that the sec¬ tarian strife and animosity between the churches, deter many sinners from making religion the subject of their chief concern and from being converted to God ? The Saviour prayed : That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; that they may also be one in us ; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.” Here then, the Saviour himself informs us what influence unity among his followers was designed to effect; history tells that when surrounding heathen were con¬ strained to say “ see how these Christians love one another,” the moral influence of their example was amazing : and who can doubt that inverse causes produce inverse effects. How often does not the principle of sect, exclude the bles¬ sed Saviour from our villages and sparsely populated sections of country, in which united Christians might support the gos¬ pel ; but cut up into jealous and discordant sects, and hating one another as though each believed a different Christ, all re¬ main destitute of the stated means of grace ! The occasional visits of ministers of different sects serve to confirm each party in its own predilections, and thus we often witness the melan¬ choly spectacle of the Saviour excluded from such places by the dissensions of his professed friends, and sinners shut out from the sanctuary of God because saints cannot agree whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas shall minister unto them. Nor is the principle of sect, less unfriendly to the spread of the gospel in heathen lands. By often stationing on the same ground at home, more men than are necessary, or can be sup¬ ported, laborers are improperly withdrawn from the destitute portions of the field, which is “ the world conflicting inter¬ ests unavoidably arise among the ministers and churches thus crowded together ; as all cannot long continue, a struggle for existence is carried on, more or less openly, and with different degrees of violence, until the failure of one or more drives them from the field, and makes room for the others. Nor is this con¬ flict to be attributed so much to the want of piety in the parties, as to that actual conflict of interests which unavoidably results 20 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. from the influence of sects. But certainly every true Christian must deplore this state of things, and it is the writer’s deliberate conviction, that one of the bitterest ingredients in the cup of ministerial sorrow, in many portions of our land, is this unholy and unhappy strife among brothers. In short it is a solemn and mournful truth, that sectarianism, the principle of sect, in a great measure changes the direction in which the energies of the church are applied, transfers the seat of war from pagan to Christian lands , from the territory of Christ’s enemies into the very family of his friends ! In the beginning the church of the Redeemer at peace at home, directed all her surplus en¬ ergies against the world around her and the world of Jews and Gentiles in foreign lands. The war was waged not by one portion of Christ’s family against another, but emphatically and distinctly by the church against the world; such was the almighty force of the spiritual artillery wielded in this holy war, that in about three hundred years the little band of fishermen and tentmakers, fought their way to the utmost bounds of the Roman empire, and the banner of king Jesus, which was first unfurled in the valleys of Judea, was waving in triumph o’er the palace of the Caesars. But who can deny, that a large por¬ tion of the energies of Christian sects is now expended in con¬ tending with each other, in building up walls of partition, in for¬ tifying and defending those peculiar views by which they are kept asunder ? The war is no longer a foreign, it is an intes¬ tine one. How large a portion of the periodical literature of the day is occupied in these family feuds, and consists of mere “ doubtful disputations !” How large a portion of ministerial talent is placed in requisition to sustain this conflict ? How many precious hours of time are thus applied ? If all the time and talent and effort spent by the orthodox protestant churches in disputing with one another about the points of their differ¬ ence, since the blessed Reformation, had been devoted to the projects of benevolent enterprise for the unconverted heathen world, who can calculate the progress that might have been made in evangelizing the gentile nations ? Let every true dis¬ ciple of the Saviour inquire, why do 600 millions of our fellow men languish in the shadows of death eighteen hundred years after the blessed gospel has been entrusted to Christian hands for them ? Four and fifty times has the entire population of the globe been swept into eternity, since the Saviour commis¬ sioned his disciples to publish the glad tidings to every crea- Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. 21 ture. Who that has witnessed the prompt and overwhelming blessing of God on the efforts of the little band of Christians in Europe and America during the last thirty years ; who that has seen a nation new-created almost in a day in the isles of the Pacific, and witnessed the standard of the cross erected in Af¬ rica, in Greece, in Turkey, in Hindoostan, in Ceylon, in China and many other places ; and the glorious gospel of the Son of God translated into about one hundred and fifty languages; who that reflects on the millions of Bibles and the tens of millions of tracts which the united bands of liberal minded Christians have sent forth, can doubt that if the Christian church had not be¬ come secularized by the unhappy union with the civil govern¬ ment under Constantine in the fourth century, the world had long ago been evangelized. Or if the Protestant church had not been split into so many parties by adopting the new, and we must believe unauthorized and pernicious doctrine, that they had a right to adopt for themselves and require of others as terms of communion, not only the fundamental doctrines which were required in the earlier centuries and were supposed suf¬ ficient for hundreds of years after the apostolic age, but also as many additional and disputed points as they pleased , thus di¬ viding the body of Christ and creating internal dissensions ; who that is acquainted with her history can doubt that greater, far greater, inroads would have been made into the dominions of the papal beast, and the glorious gospel of the Son of God, in the three centuries since the Reformation, have been carried to the ends of the earth. Such then being the mournful consequences of that disunion against which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently admon¬ ished their followers, we feel with double force, that the church has been guilty of suicidal error, and that it is the solemn duty of every friend of Jesus, sincerely to inquire, Lord what wouldst thou have me do to heal the wounds of thy dismembered body ! CHAPTER II. J . , . » | ' i Deeply impressed with the conviction, that the blessed Sa¬ viour and his apostles have explicitly inhibited the division of the body of Christ into sectarian parties or factions, and fully persuaded that these divisions which exist among Protestants 4 22 Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal. generally, at least with their present concomitants, are highly prejudicial to the prosperity of Zion; let us approach the in¬ quiry, what is the ; more immediate and specific nature of that union, which characterized the primitive church, and which it is obligatory on us to promote. As Protestants, who are ready to exclaim with Chillingworth, “ the Bible, the Bible” is the only infallible source of our religion, we must naturally turn our eyes to its sacred pages ; nor can we with safety rely on the practice of the church in any subsequent age, except in so far as it accords with apostolical example, or at least is a manifest development of principles clearly inculcated in the gospel. It is indeed worthy of remark, that we know next to nothing of the history of the Christian church during more than a hundred years after its first establishment, except what is contained in the New Testament. This has often been regretted by men ; but God has doubtless designedly enveloped that early period of her uninspired history in darkness, to compel us to rest en¬ tirely on his own infallible word, and to draw a clear and broad line of distinction between the authority of his inspired servants and that of the fathers of the church in after ages. The histo¬ ry and practice of the earlier ages when known, may afford an occasional illustration of our subject; yet, as protestants, we can acknowledge nothing as essential to the character of the church, or the duties of her members, which is not distinctly contained in the sacred volume. It is certain, that this union did not consist in any compact ecclesiastical organization of the entire church in a nation or empire under one supreme judicatory. Excepting an occasional interposition of apostolical authority, we are informed, that each church attended to its own affairs of government and discipline. Addressing the Corinthians,* Paul says “ Do not ye judge ( xylveie ) them that are within ? There¬ fore put ye away ( i'taQuie ) from among yourselves that wick¬ ed person manifestly attributing to the Corinthians the right to discipline and exclude an unworthy member from their body. The same right of supervision and discipline over her members, is attributed to each individual church by the Saviour himself :j* “ ^ thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone”— and eventually, if other means should fail, u tell it to the church.” Nor do we find in either of these cases any ultimate reference to a judicatory consisting * 1 Cor. 5: 12. f Matt. 18: 15—17. See also 2 Cor. 2: 7. 23 Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. of representatives from several, much less from all other Chris¬ tian churches. The phraseology* of the New Testament evi¬ dently implies, that each church was a distinct and complete church and a member of the body of Christ. It is however equally certain, that the New Testament presents in addition to several minor consultations, one example of a council or synod,f whose members were “ the apostles, elders (that is, preachers), and brethren (that is, lay members),” and who assembled at Jerusalem for the purpose of settling a dispute touching the ob¬ ligation of Christian converts to observe “ the law of Moses, etc.” This synod was convened for a special purpose, was a pro re nata convention, and although it fully sanctions the call of such meetings as often as necessary, and justifies a provision for sta¬ ted meetings if experience establishes their necessity and utility ; yet it cannot with any plausibility be alleged, that the churches were then regularly united into such synods, or that such meet¬ ings were held regularly, at fixed times. Had they been of an¬ nual recurrence, who can doubt that some trace of the fact, or allusion to it, would be found in the Acts of the apostles or the epistles of Paul, which cover a period of about thirty years, and narrate or allude to the prominent events in the history of the church during that period ? These facts urge upon our atten¬ tion several important positions, the value of which will be more evident in the sequel. 'They are these : a) That the divine Head of the church has intrusted the great mass of the duties and privileges of his kingdom to the individual churches in their primary capacity. Hence, though the churches ought to take counsel with each other, and for this purpose may have stated meetings , and constitute regular synods , they should not suffer any encroachments on their rights, nor permit too much of their business to be transacted by these delegated associations or presbyteries or synods. The neglect of this caution gradually robbed the churches of their rights and liberties in past ages, and fostered that incubus of Christiani¬ ty, the papal hierarchy at Rome. b) The duty of fraternal consultation and union of counsel ought not to be neglected by the church in the discharge of her duties. This principle evidently affords sanction to the va¬ rious associations among the churches such as presbyteries, sy- * Gal. 1:2. 1 Cor. 16: 1. 2 Cor. 8: 1. 1 Thess. 2: 14. Acts. 9: 31. 15: 41. f Acts xv. 24 Dr. Schmuckcr’s Appeal. nods, etc., for the purposes of mutual counsel, encouragement and cooperation in the performance of such duties as can best be accomplished by conjunction of means and efforts. Yet the history of past ages distinctly admonishes us to beware of the natural tendency to consolidation in church as well as State. There is doubtless danger of the concentration of power in the hands of ecclesiastical judicatories, which has in former ages, alas ! been but too frequently abused to purposes of oppression and bloodshed, to the destruction of liberty of conscience, and the obstruction of the Redeemer’s spiritual kingdom. It ap¬ pears inexpedient for the churches to devolve on their delega¬ ted judicatories, such duties as they can perform as well in their primary capacity for another reason ; because, when du¬ ties of various kinds are accumulated on any individual bodies, they must necessarily be less able to discharge them all with efficiency. It is evident then, that in the apostolic age, the unity of the church did not consist in a compact conjunction of all her parts in an ecclesiastical judicatory. On the contrary, we have no accounts of any synods or councils after that age, until the lat¬ ter part of the second century. Eusebius, the earliest author by whom the transactions of these councils are recorded, uses the following language, from which it is highly probable that such councils were nothing new, and that similar ones had been occa¬ sionally held during the previous seventy-five years which had intervened since the death of the last apostle :* “ About this time appeared Novatus, a presbyter of the church of Rome, and a man elated with haughtiness against those (that had fall- c * Euseb. Book (>. chapter 43. JEjitidr] ttsq xr\ y.axa tovtmv ciQ^sig vnsQrj&avicc Noovaiog ir,g Pcofiatwv ixy.Xrjariag 7iQ£cr(jvT£Qog, wg [irjx&z ovdfjg ctvzolg cycoTtjQcag sXTiidog^ ^Tjd si tiuvtix sig ETtiO'TQOcptjv yvijcriciv xai> xa&aQotv £goy.oXoyrj■' .i' ft i v -Vliiii - JjW^Mttvn’?. V mt rm' «WM. ♦ PRINTED IN U. S. A.